Readers may be interested in this thread (on the future gift
economy and exchange) from the aut-op-sy list at:
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/aut_html/

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Seattle
To: aut-op-sy <aut-op-sy@...>
Date: Monday, June 02, 2003 4:44 PM
Subject: AUT: future gift economy will not based on exchange
(reply to Robin)


Hi Robin,

Thanks for your reply this morning.

------------------------------------------------------------
Bauwens' article describes work by Stephan Merten
------------------------------------------------------------

Before replying to your comments I thought that I should first
mention that last nite I took a look at the article by Michel
Bauwens that Steve Wright described in a post May 31:

> Peer to peer
> --from technology to politics to a new civilisation?
> A specter is haunting the world: the specter of peer to peer.
> The existing economic system is trying to co-opt it, but
> it is also a harbinger of a new type of human relationship,
> and may in the end be incompatible with informational
> capitalism.
http://noosphere.cc/peerToPeer.html

I have only read or skimmed the first half of the article. It
is useful and largely correct on many questions--despite being
mistaken in asserting that the progressive movement should not
aim to take state power. One of the passages that caught my
attention was the following--which is strikingly similar to a
section of my post last nite:

> But one author goes in fact much further than this,
> Stephan Merten of Oekonux.de, a site that wants
> to promote the Free Software paradigm as the
> example for other social practices, and eventually,
> as the central paradigm of a new type of society.
> He, in my opinion, correctly argues that the internet
> is not an exchange economy at all, because in fact,
> each produces according to his capabilities and
> desires, and each takes according to his needs,
> which is the very definition of communism by
> Karl Marx. He also notes that the original gift
> economy was also a form of oppression, because
> these gifts created obligations for those who
> received them, something that is not the case
> on the internet.
>
> Two important aspects of these new social practices
> on the internet, which involve millions of users, and
> not just the thousands of programmers active around
> Free Software, is that the process is cooperative,
> and free.
http://www.noosphere.cc/peerToPeer.html

By the way, I checked out the oekonux site and a version exists
in English:
http://www.oekonux.org/index.html

[...]

------------------------------------------------------------
your comments
------------------------------------------------------------

> I approach this subject from the moral angle insofar
> as gift exchanges are essentially moral transactions;
> they make for a more cohesive society. [...]
>
> Morality is a bit of swearword for some Marxists [...]
>
> I would envisage a highly flexible kind of gift economy
> emerging in this society expressing itself in a variety
> of forms from direct reciprocity to generalised indirect
> reciprocity

The two issues you raise are (1) morality and (2) exchange.

------------------------------------------------------------
morality inseparable from productivity of labor
------------------------------------------------------------

It is important to see that in the future gift economy morality
is directly related to the productivity of labor. (This is
important because in the long run the productivity of labor
determines everything.)

A higher morality will make possible a higher productivity of
labor because it will unleash enthusiasm, creativity,
collectivity, community and a competition of a much higher type
that the barbaric competition for survival (ie: lowest wages and
worst conditions) characteristic of the capitalist mode of
production. This will make possible the unfettered flow of
communication and "merging of minds" necessary for the most rapid
possible development of better ways of organizing the production
of goods and services. In a class-divided society this flow of
communication and merger of minds is impeded--because each of the
antagonistic classes has a direct and powerful material incentive
to hide or withold information from its adversary.

If you grasp the relationship between morality and the
productivity of labor--this will help resolve your conflict with
materialists who want to see and understand matters in direct
material terms.

------------------------------------------------------------
in the future, exchange will be seen as corruption
------------------------------------------------------------

As far as exchange--you are mistaken. You want to use the phrase
"gift exchanges" and believe that the gift economy of the future
will include "direct reciprocity" (ie: a euphemism for exchange).

An exchange of gifts may have a role between familiy and
friends--but it can never be a basis for running a modern
economy. Humanity passed that stage a long time ago.

Primative societies based on "gift exchange" can be viewed
as societies in the early phase of economic exchange.

Exchange means the existence of _commodity production_ (ie:
the creation of good and services for exchange) and unleashes all
the laws of commodity production. In all economies based on
commodity production these laws are "enforced" (as it were) by
the productivity of labor (ie: these laws must be obeyed in order
for the productivity of labor to increase) and will inevitably
lead to the creation of money, capital and a class-divided
society with proletariat and bourgeoisie.

The gift economy of the future will _not_ be based on exchange.

The masses will regard such exchange as a form of _corruption_.
You may not understand this today (because you do not appear to
understand the operation of the laws of commodity production) but
in the future the masses will understand this very well.

I include (below my signature) an excerpt from a private email to
a former comrade in which I discuss how the masses will oppose
commodity production. I also discuss the decisive distinction
between "ownership" and "degree of control".

Finally--before I sign off--I will note that my work on this list
is probably winding down. I would like your permission to
subscribe you to my pof-100 list. Subscribers to this list
receive only two emails a year, from me, which describe the
progress (or lack of progress) of my various projects.

Sincerely and with revolutionary regards,
Ben Seattle
----//-// 2.Jun.2003
http://struggle.net/Ben (my elists / theory / infrastructure)

Send email to: pof-100-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
No Spam!--Just 2 emails a year to keep you updated about my work

========================================
the distinction between "ownership" and "degree-of-control"
(from private email of Ben to Alex -- February 23, 2002)
========================================

Is it really the case that the production units would "own" the
goods/services they produce?

Would the economy I describe actually operate on the basis of
exchange or barter?

To both questions I assert the answer is: No.

As I have described it, all of society, collectively, controls
the goods/services created by each production unit. Of course
the production unit has a large degree of control over what it
creates. But so does the rest of society. The test comes when
the production unit attempts to make a decision that is highly
unpopular with the overwhelming majority of society. As I have
described it the production unit that attempts to defy the
overwhelming majority of society would face immediate and
effective action that would compel it to reverse its decision:
it finds its supplies cut off. The people who work for the
production unit would face social pressure. Consumers would
not use the goods and services created. Of course the _degree_
to which the production unit faced this kind of pressure would
(roughly) be proportional to the degree to which it pissed off
or otherwise outraged large numbers of people.

Do you grasp the distinction between "ownership" and the kind
of "degree-of-control" which I am describing? This distinction
is fundamental.

In capitalist society "ownership" is defended by the legal
system and the state. If I own a factory in capitalist society
I can do what I darn well want with what I produce as long as
the factory produces a profit and can pay the bills.
In classless, communist society if a production unit defies the
will of the majority of society--it darn well better be
prepared to wage a war for public opinion--and be prepared to
win over the masses and convince them that they were mistaken.

In my reply to Joseph's part 2 I specifically note that the
masses will take immediate and effective action to shut down
production units which make use of barter or exchange because
this will be considered to be a form of corruption that poses a
threat to society. I describe this in paragraphs 229 - 247. I
reproduce some of these paragraphs ... below [...]

========================================
Joseph's Islands (paragraphs 230 - 247)
(from http://Leninism.org/some/80x.htm )
========================================

230
How about Joseph's charge that the entire complex adaptive
system that would constitute a communist economy, culture and
political system would, if it ever existed, collapse back into
capitalism ?
231
There is a point here that is of theoretical interest. Joseph
describes how production units would "own" the products they
create and "trade" these products with other units to "get what
they need". At this point the products are in fact commodities
(ie: they are produced not for consumption but instead for
exchange). From this we would have a straightforward
development of money, credit, finance, etc. leading rather
quickly right back to capitalism.
232
So the point to grasp here is that Joseph would be correct in
his description of this course of development -- save for a
single factor -- the intervention in this process of the
masses. Left "to itself" -- without the factor of the
consciousness of the masses and the resultant innumerable small
actions of millions of people -- such a scenario as Joseph
describes is precisely the course that events would follow.

[...]

237
And the masses would be expected to have a fair amount of
passion that motivates their actions in this regard. The
struggle to overcome capitalism will require tremendous
sacrifices from hundreds of millions of people. The abuses, the
hardships, the misery, the extreme wastage of resources under
capitalism will remain a bitter memory that will underlay the
politics of a period that Joseph has claimed will have no
politics.
238
What is the kind of corruption
that the masses would oppose ?
239
Any step in the direction of production for exchange rather
than consumption would represent corruption of the first order.
Any production unit that treats its products as "property"
would lose mass support and not be able to survive in
competition with other units that enjoy mass support. And this
would be a fairly sensitive process. Even very small steps in
the direction of treating products as property could elicit a
huge reaction from the masses. This is the amplification effect
that would give the communist economy such steady direction and
enormous power .
240
Force "like gravity" would be resisted
by actions of the masses
241
In the early period of classless society there would still
exist substantial and powerful remnants of the self-centered
ideology and thinking created in previous society. Under these
conditions the tendency toward corruption would assert itself
as an inevitable force, like gravity, that could only be
resisted through the actions of the masses . Any tendency, by a
production unit, towards asserting "ownership" over what it
produces -- would be exposed and smashed up by the masses --
who would regard this as similar to a parent asserting
"ownership" over his adult children.
242
Joseph describes how giant alliances and networks may come
into existence as part of the political and economic struggle
within a communist economic-political system. And yes, such
alliances might come about (but not monopolies -- because this
is another form of corruption that the masses would not
permit -- because the potential for abuse is extreme -- just
like it is with the monopoly of allegedly "non-political"
political power that Joseph advocates with his "von Neumann
single point control theory"). But such alliances would likely
be short-lived in a fast-moving and shifting economy and in any
event would be battered into quick disintegration should they
engage in the open tit-for-tat exchanges of products rather
than to make their products available to all on the basis of
"wise use".
243
The masses are capable of grasping the necessity of the
principle of production for use . The alliances described by
Joseph are different than alliances formed on the basis of
political principles such as developing the economy and serving
the people. Joseph may not be able to distinguish between
healthy and corrupt alliances . Joseph may not be able to
distinguish between giving a product to a production unit in
exchange for (a) its wise consumption (ie: consumption
beneficial to society) and (b) another product. But the masses
will.
244
The masses will support (with their labor, with their
consumption, with their voice) those production units and
production alliances that do the most to serve the people. And
vice versa -- those units which do less well at serving the
needs of the masses will not inspire the hard work and play
that will allow them to expand and reproduce themselves and
their hallmark traditions and methods. This sounds like
ruthless "social Darwinism" to Joseph but it is actually fairly
simple: if the music is not good -- people will not dance to
it.
245
Joseph's Islands
246
The corrupt alliances described by Joseph, should they come
about, would be quickly isolated. I propose calling such
formations "Joseph's Islands" in honor of Joseph, who has
theorized their existence. And what would be the fate of
Joseph's islands ? Such islands would end up diminutive within
an ocean of economic activity. They would enjoy rapidly
dwindling mass support. They would likely evaporate or shrink
to insignificance. It is difficult to conceive of
self-sufficient islands able to survive in a vast
interconnected economy because interaction with and support
from the rest of the economy would be a condition of the
existence of any production unit of real significance.
247
Consider the matter. Why would anyone want to work for a
production unit that is corrupt ? In a communist economy no one
needs to work in order to eat and live. It is the other way
around. People live in order to work and this means that they
would no sooner want to work for an outfit that is corrupt than
they would want to sacrifice their children to a pagan god. So
if Joseph's island is based on commodity production then the
redivision of labor (the cleavage into classes with
antagonistic material interests) would eventually assert itself
and the workers would have a problem with the way things are
done. What is to prevent the workers from saying adios (and
taking with them the most important and decisive element of
production: their skilled labor) ? There would be plenty of
other places where people could work for free and be
appreciated and be part of a community based on the principle
of serving the people.

<>